Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump
July 15, 2024 7:31 AM Subscribe

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon Dismisses Case Against Trump WASHINGTON (AP) — By ERIC TUCKER Updated 10:20 AM EDT, July 15, 2024 The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case of former President Donald Trump in Florida dismissed the prosecution on Monday, siding with defense lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed. The decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon brings a stunning and abrupt conclusion to a criminal case that at the time it was filed was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats that the Republican former president confronted. Trump faced dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

THE GUARDIAN Judge cites unlawful appointment of Jack Smith in classified documents case dismissal

CNN Judge dismisses Trump classified documents case

posted by pjsky (172 comments total) 26 users marked this as a favorite

Honestly it's hard to even come up with metafilter comments any more.
posted by mcstayinskool at 7:34 AM on July 15, 2024 [91 favorites]

Feels like we are watching democracy die in real time. This is insane. Even if it's overturned, how will it happen quickly enough to keep that wretched demagogue out of the White House?
posted by pjsky at 7:34 AM on July 15, 2024 [21 favorites]

Aw he's suffered enough this week 🥺🙏
I'm sure he's learned his lesson
posted by phunniemee at 7:35 AM on July 15, 2024 [14 favorites]

Presuming that this is overturned, will this finally wrest the case from her hands? If so, good news.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:35 AM on July 15, 2024 [26 favorites]

Of all the bullshit things that judge has done this is the bullshitiest. :(
posted by mazola at 7:36 AM on July 15, 2024 [21 favorites]

I wonder how long she had this in her pocket and was waiting for a good moment, and then the perfect moment showed up.
posted by tclark at 7:37 AM on July 15, 2024 [38 favorites]

Presuming that this is overturned, will this finally wrest the case from her hands? If so, good news.

I had that thought too. But I can't imagine how that could happen swiftly enough to affect the election in November. Once Trump's back in office he is totally untouchable, thanks to the Supreme Court.
posted by pjsky at 7:37 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Surely this...? Maybe we've been doing that wrong.
posted by St. Oops at 7:38 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

I think she’s had enough leeway and the government has been very tolerant of her bullshit so far. It’s time for them to go ask for her to be removed from the case. Any judge making this type of ruling based off a Thomas dissent in an unrelated case is just nuts.
posted by Room 101 at 7:39 AM on July 15, 2024 [26 favorites]

My search for a place to escape to after the election continues apace . . . In the meantime the fight continues.
posted by pjsky at 7:39 AM on July 15, 2024

This has been a stunning three weeks and, especially, 72 hours. To have this happen less than two days after the assassination attempt, on the morning of the RNC kickoff, is unreal.

Feels like we are watching democracy die in real time. This is insane. Even if it's overturned, how will it happen quickly enough to keep that wretched demagogue out of the White House?

My kneejerk reaction is that this case is done. They'll appeal, but I really doubt this can get decided before the election. I think the conviction in the hush money case will be the only one of Trump's legal cases to actually proceed to trial and verdict (assuming he wins, which is pretty likely at this point).
posted by fortitude25 at 7:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

According to NPR, "[Cannon's] opinion closely tracked the reasoning outlined by conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent concurrence in a separate case against Trump."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [8 favorites]

NYT liveblog

--

Popehat, normally quite the institutionalist on these things says it all

Of course this originates with clarence thomas' bonkers concurrence a couple of weeks ago.

---

While this is ultra grim structurally, practically for TFG, this is bullshit and just de jure instatiates what was de facto gonna happen. This case was going to be run out past the election anyway, by which time it would be moot.

If trump wins; it is corrupted away. If a dem wins, then the appeals process can take time.

--
All this is is red meat for the base on the eve of the Repub conf, deliberately demoralizing for people who care about the rule of law, and a sincecure for Cannon.

DEMS: Use this to FIRE YOU UP TO GET THE NEXT DEM PRESIDENT ELECTED, WHOEVER THE CANDIDATE MAY BE.

posted by lalochezia at 7:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [43 favorites]

Haha maybe this is the judge quiet quitting.
posted by mazola at 7:42 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

They appeal, it takes however long, that gets appealed, etc etc.

If there really is no way for this prosecution to move forward to a conclusion before the election, Biden could just read out the worst evidence from a lectern as part of his official duties in safeguarding national security. And if there's a double secret doesn't-apply-to-democrats part of that SCOTUS ruling, then you get to that now but you don't pre-emptively surrender those powers.

Talk about the intelligence assets overseas that died and how many were in the files he stole. Talk about the Five Eyes (iirc) disclosure. We're there any weapons details? Plans? Just get the subject matter out sans details and let the press make a meal out of it.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:43 AM on July 15, 2024 [23 favorites]

It was already clear Cannon’s endless delays were going to push the trial past January, and that Trump would squash the case if re-elected. So in practical terms, this doesn’t change much. He needs to lose the election.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:46 AM on July 15, 2024 [16 favorites]

This Clarence Thomas fellow is a menace. Clearly, anyone who abetted his rise to power, particularly those who took Thomas's side in his confirmation hearing when his character was challenged, ought to face repercussions even today.

Er, wait.
posted by delfin at 7:48 AM on July 15, 2024 [45 favorites]

And if Trump loses the election, then what? What is the cleanup plan to remove lawless GOP operatives from the judiciary without Congress (because the odds of either party every having 66 senators ever again is a rounding error of zero)? It's great if they win the current battle but meaningless if they think the rule of law will win out and magically reset the board.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:50 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

Slackermagee is on to something. Biden should hold a press conference tonight and reveal as much as he can about what Trump stole. Basically present Jack Smith's evidence directly to the people. Litigate this in the court of public opinion. Nail Republicans in every interview asking them if they are okay with classified documents being sold to the highest bidder. Hammer this story as hard as they can in the press with every dirty detail they have. AND IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS ALREADY.
posted by pjsky at 7:50 AM on July 15, 2024 [41 favorites]

Any judge making this type of ruling based off a Thomas dissent in an unrelated case is just nuts.

I'm pretty confident that this is just where we are now. The pretense of using the courts for their more recent traditional purposes is quickly giving way to raw power moves.

G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum predicted in 2018 that the GOP would abandon democracy once demographics threatened its ability to achieve its aims while maintaining a facade of supporting it, and that's exactly what happened.

They're not coming back from this, and I honestly do not see a way forward that doesn't involve widespread violence and messy, chaotic fragmentation.

Biden should hold a press conference tonight and reveal as much as he can about what Trump stole. Basically present Jack Smith's evidence directly to the people. Litigate this in the court of public opinion.

Whatever the vigorous, on-the-offence, play-to-win move is, it's the one Biden won't make. There will be soft, disappointed noises and kumbaya pleas for fair play. It's almost like the Dems are more focused on suffocating their own left wing than winning elections.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:51 AM on July 15, 2024 [66 favorites]

Yeah, was never going to trial before election anyway.

Our system is criminally understaffed. Justice takes a loooooong time to properly observe the rights of (rich) defendants. It is a very good thing that our system allows for this. It is a very BAD thing that the whole system is structured in such a way that it requires literally millions of dollars for any defendant to receive this type of protection of their rights and that the entire system is so (intentionally) underfunded that such protections require MASSIVE amounts of time.
posted by Room 101 at 7:51 AM on July 15, 2024 [7 favorites]

everything is rotten and everything sucks.
posted by mattgriffin at 7:54 AM on July 15, 2024 [18 favorites]

Pretty sure this isn’t appealable. It was the sword of Damocles hanging over this whole affair. Once dismissed, double jeopardy attaches, etc. IANAL, but that’s what I remember law folk worrying about.

IANAL as well, but as I recall, the main fear was that she would dismiss the case after a jury was seated, which would absolutely trigger double jeopardy. Doing at this stage has less finality, though nearly as much effectiveness in strictly practical terms.
posted by delfin at 7:54 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

When I attended jury selection locally last year, we were reminded that jeopardy attaches once the jury is installed. I haven't read the ruling, but was the case dismissed with or without prejudice? If it was dismissed with prejudice, like Alec Baldwin's case, then the charges could not be refiled at all.
posted by royals at 7:56 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

It's almost like the Dems are more focused on suffocating their own left wing than winning elections.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that the DNC leadership is committed to this.
posted by slogger at 7:57 AM on July 15, 2024 [10 favorites]

This ruling isn’t on the merits of the case; it’s that Jack Smith can’t bring this case. This can be appealed. But as others have noted, it’s all theater. Sure, appeal it. Go ahead. The 11th Circuit doesn’t fast track it. The Supreme Court slow walks it. As a path to an outcome, this road is closed.
posted by kerf at 8:09 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

I expect Jack Smith's team has the appeal and brief pretty much ready for the 11th Circuit, and I'm interested in how long it takes him to file. It could be hours depending on if anything needs to change due to the particulars of the text of the dismissal.
posted by mikelieman at 8:09 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

From the assassination attempt thread:

I also have to say that Donald Trump is the luckiest motherfucker I have ever seen.
posted by bluesky43 at 5:14 PM on July 13
posted by bluesky43 at 8:11 AM on July 15, 2024 [13 favorites]

I also have to say that Donald Trump is the luckiest motherfucker I have ever seen.

You don't need luck when you've taken over the federal judiciary.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:12 AM on July 15, 2024 [45 favorites]

Trump to announce his vice-presidential pick today - report [The Guardian | Live News Update]

It's Cannon, isn't it? (or she's holding out for SC appointment after)
posted by mazola at 8:13 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

I expect Jack Smith's team has the appeal and brief pretty much ready for the 11th Circuit, and I'm interested in how long it takes him to file. It could be hours depending on if anything needs to change due to the particulars of the text of the dismissal.

His filing could consist of "Oh, come on!" and would be accurate and on point.
posted by mazola at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2024 [10 favorites]

On top of Thomas's relationship with his Hitler portrait friend, it was recently revealed that Thomas accepted a free yacht trip to Russia and was given a helicopter ride to the birthplace of Putin.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:54 AM

I thought this was satire at first. But no. Good god I'm normally an optimistic person but I feel like the US does not have a chance in hell to come back from any of this.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2024 [9 favorites]

At this point I'm convinced he made a deal with the devil, because nothing hurts him.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2024 [12 favorites]

Trump to announce his vice-presidential pick today - report

Probably Burgum because he passes the look test.
posted by mittens at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2024

Too bad Biden won’t use his newly vested King powers here.
posted by edithkeeler at 8:16 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

Not to go there, but Revelation 13:3 talks about the beast surviving a head wound.
(for the record, I don't believe in the antichrist)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:16 AM on July 15, 2024 [20 favorites]

I also have to say that Donald Trump is the luckiest motherfucker I have ever seen.

You don't need luck when you've taken over the federal judiciary.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:12 AM

It's the backdrop to this entire shitshow - a man whose only talent is hate and demagoguery has never ever been brought to justice (except for Stormy Daniels but that may go too).
posted by bluesky43 at 8:17 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

It's Cannon, isn't it?

That thought crossed my mind as well. A docile dimwit who will unflinchingly follow orders.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 8:18 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Yes it is wild that Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll have brought the only “justice” to ever truly touch DJT - fleeting though it all may be.
posted by edithkeeler at 8:21 AM on July 15, 2024 [10 favorites]

Question: does that mean the Senate could meet to approve Smith and it would be back on? If Trump did the crime, the choice of prosecutor would be sort of immaterial. Not to mention, if Senate approval is really required how come nobody mentioned it in US history before now?
posted by TreeRooster at 8:26 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

If Biden, or even better, Kamala Harris goes live on TV tonight presenting Jack Smith's case then Democrats might have a chance to turn things around. Make a big enough stink about this so that even the lowest of low info voters knows TRUMP STOLE highly sensitive, classified documents, sold them to Russia, China and Arabia and godknows who else. Dismiss with the legal mumbo jumbo, dispense the nonsense about which branch of government can or cannot appoint a special prosecutor and oopsie, who's paying for it?? Just ignore that shit and present the facts of the case to the American people. Trump is a TRAITOR. He is a CLEAR and PRESENT Danger to Democracy. And as far as I am concerned, Biden has an obligation to do everything within his power (which is a lot, thank you SC) to stop Trump from getting back in to power. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Remember, Lincoln did a lot of barely constitutional things to ensure the Union could win the Civil War. And thank god he did!
posted by pjsky at 8:28 AM on July 15, 2024 [36 favorites]

FWIW, here's the order (PDF).
posted by mazola at 8:33 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

What does this trial even matter at this point in terms of the election? Anyone who was going to be swayed by a Trump conviction already has been as he's already been convicted.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:36 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Honestly I'm thankful to Judge Cannon for this ruling, because it justified a new politics thread and the last one was getting pretty rancid.
posted by constraint at 8:37 AM on July 15, 2024

Honestly I'm thankful to Judge Cannon for this ruling, because it justified a new politics thread and the last one was getting pretty rancid.

It's good to know she cares about MeFiers.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:38 AM on July 15, 2024

What does this trial even matter at this point in terms of the election?

If it didn't matter, the Republicans and their Billionaire owners would not have worked so hard and spent so much money getting the case tossed. Americans may not care about philanderers paying off prostitutes, or even a few fake electors trying to steal an election. But if people really knew the depth of Trump's betrayal by virtue of his stealing classified documents and what he did with those files, the tide might turn.
posted by pjsky at 8:47 AM on July 15, 2024 [20 favorites]

But if people really knew the depth of Trump's

I guess it's a bit heart-warming that people still believe this in 2024.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:49 AM on July 15, 2024 [16 favorites]

star gentle uterus - I'm thinking of the people I work with who don't pay much attention to politics, have a vague notion of the shit Trump has done, but are basically clueless when it comes to details or how enormously grievous Trump's crimes are. Perhaps it's overly optimistic, but I do believe they would be appalled if they understood the severity of his crimes. And then would vote against him, or at least skip voting at all.
posted by pjsky at 8:53 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

It's good to know she cares about MeFiers.

you misspelled MFers
posted by phunniemee at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2024 [8 favorites]

The trick is getting them to understand that when they get their news of the world from Fox or the rest of the segregated right-wing media empire.
posted by delfin at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

There isn't really anything I can say these days in these threads that won't get deleted

The civil war is here, it's just not evenly distributed
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:02 AM on July 15, 2024 [15 favorites]

this mf fascist neo the way he dodges bullets. seriously what the fuck is it going to take to make this guy face consequences. truly unbelievable.
posted by dis_integration at 9:06 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]

I think she’s had enough leeway and the government has been very tolerant of her bullshit so far. It’s time for them to go ask for her to be removed from the case.
posted by Room 101

The government has had little room to manoeuvre on this, until now.

I only hope the 11th circuit appeals court expedites the case, so that the public gets to see the evidence against Trump, even if not a final verdict, before the election.
posted by Pouteria at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

I don't have anything to say. I cannot find the words. 2024 continues to astonish me and not in a very good way. What I would like to say would probably put me on one of the US government watch list. I am terrified. I live so close to the US border. I'm fucking terrified. The fix is in. The fix is so fucking in.
posted by Savannah at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2024 [13 favorites]

I'm sure the information is out there, but I'm too depressed to wade through the details (and I have a job and a family and stuff to occupy my time), but is Cannon's argument against the appointment of a special counsel by the AG in general or is her position that it's not acceptable in this particular case? Or is it that special counsels are not acceptable?

What's the meat of it?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:08 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Lurgi Here is the wiki on it. Since Nixon, there was a law called "ethics in govt" that said the AG can appoint special prosecutors, especially to avoid conflict of interest. That expired in 1999, but the DOJ put in place rules to extend it, which worked fine for Clinton, Bush and Trump: obviously the AG is confirmed by the Senate, and then if they want to avoid a conflict of interest they appoint someone else independent. Cannon's ruling here is ridiculous, and should lose in appeals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel
posted by TreeRooster at 9:12 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

“If there is no law establishing the office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution,” Thomas wrote. “A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president.”

So if Congress does not specifically authorize Jack Smith to act, Jack Smith cannot act, by this argument.

Cannon agreed, and specified that the Nixon-era precedent was neither recent nor relevant.
posted by delfin at 9:14 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Per The Guardian: (emphasis mine)

The stunning decision by Aileen Cannon, the US district judge appointed by Trump, found that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel violated the US constitution as he had not been named to his post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

Cannon effectively ruled that there was no statute that authorized a special counsel to bring charges in the Trump case, and previous court rulings – including by the US supreme court in the landmark Richard Nixon case – were not binding on her decision.

“Because Special Counsel Smith’s exercise of prosecutorial power has not been authorized by law, the court sees no way forward aside from dismissal of the superseding indictment,” Cannon wrote in the 93-page decision.

The ruling cast aside previous court decisions that upheld the use of special prosecutors stretching back to the Watergate era, and removed a major legal threat to Trump on the opening day of the Republican national convention, where he is set to accept the GOP nomination for president.
posted by pjsky at 9:14 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Good time to be reminded that The Federalist Society is one of the most evil, destructive forces in US politics.

The answer is known before the trial starts, to them, just gotta invent a half-assed legal veneer to make sure the courts only work for conservatives.
posted by teece303 at 9:15 AM on July 15, 2024 [24 favorites]

Biden has an obligation to do everything within his power

Right now the Democrats remind me of the prisoners in Schindler's List, standing at attention, waiting to be shot. Frozen in an instinctual fear, hoping they will be overlooked.

The logical thing to do at this point is declare the Federalist Society an insurrectionist terrorist organization and arrest all of it's members.

Lincoln did a lot of barely constitutional things

It was easier for him to win over reluctant allies because the monumental injustice of slavery was right there for all to see, a catalog of sins built up over many decades. A lot of people were publicly ambivalent but privately sick of it.

In this case the general public have their creature comforts to protect, so getting them to believe what's at stake as previously resisting new orgs and social media empires slowly succumb to this onslaught will be very difficult.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:19 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry .....

FROM AP Today In History July 15

1799: Discovery of the Rosetta Stone
1834: The Spanish Inquisition was abolished
1916: Boeing Co. was founded in Seattle
2006: Twitter (now X) launched to public

Shall we add
2024: United States of American irrevocably slipped into a Fascist Theocracy
posted by pjsky at 9:21 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Right now the Democrats remind me of the prisoners in Schindler's List, standing at attention, waiting to be shot.

I think that's far too kind. The calculus is almost certainly "well, this is very bad but we can fundraise off of this and get them next time." Elected officials and their staff are unlikely to experience the true horror that will follow in the wake of their inaction. They're not waiting to be shot, they're just going to wait out the shootings.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:30 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

I now understand that Korean drama trope where a person cries out and grabs their seized-up neck when something stressful happens because that is what just happened to me when I read the headline that Cannon dismissed the case.
posted by jabah at 9:34 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

This is great news! For Hunter Biden.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:34 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]

> They're not waiting to be shot...

they should be.
posted by Clowder of bats at 9:37 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

(or she's holding out for SC appointment after)

Bingo.

Were I wearing my pearls just now, I would have crushed them into dust.
posted by y2karl at 9:39 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Aileen Cannon Dismisses Stolen Documents Case Based on Special Counsel Appointment [Emptywheel]

Update: Okay, I’ve read the thing.

It’s hilarious.

It’s hilarious, because it doesn’t create any delay that Cannon was not pursuing anyway. Indeed, Jack Smith could immediately appeal this and try to get her tossed, so it may hasten things (unless Trump wins!).

It’s hilarious because it is unbelievably hubristic. The only credible future for Judge Cannon now is Trump’s first SCOTUS appointment in a second term.

It’s hilarious because the way she did this, if it were upheld (not an impossibility given how nutty SCOTUS has gotten), it would be even more useful for Hunter Biden than Donald Trump (especially if Trump didn’t win reelection), because the statutes of limitation on Hunter’s alleged crimes have started to expire.

posted by mazola at 9:47 AM on July 15, 2024 [14 favorites]

The universe wants America's special boy to never face any consequences for anything. Everyone thought his 'shoot someone on 5th Ave' boast was ridiculous, but it's true. The Dems leaders are cowards and (as someone said above) only concerned about crushing their left flank. Merrick Garland and Jack Smith got worked by Trumps C Team. A feeble declining leader is running for re-election and will freeze something before the election and the politico-media will focus exclusively on that. The politico-media will handmaiden us into autocracy (they cancelled the Morning Joe this morning cause it might be mean to Golden Toilet).

IMO Biden squeaks out the popular vote and maybe even the EC as women dont generally want to report to the Youth Pastor Corp on all their sexual and reproductive matters, but the Court buys the magas arguments of 'massive fraud' (with no evidence of same) and throws the election to the House of Reps, and Trump2: Tour de Vengeance begins. He will NEVER be out of our rapidly diminishing lives, until he dies in office in 2042.

Doomsaying, I'm really sorry, I'm bowing out for a while as I need to work and this shit is getting progressively bleaker by the day.
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:52 AM on July 15, 2024 [12 favorites]

It’s hilarious because the way she did this, if it were upheld (not an impossibility given how nutty SCOTUS has gotten), it would be even more useful for Hunter Biden than Donald Trump (especially if Trump didn’t win reelection), because the statutes of limitation on Hunter’s alleged crimes have started to expire.
posted by mazola at 9:47 AM on July 15 [1 favorite −] Favorite added! [⚑]

Explain please?
posted by bluesky43 at 9:53 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

nevermind Andrew Weissman on MSNBC (link above) explainer. She's a total idiot.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:55 AM on July 15, 2024

Speaking from Canada: America's in trouble
posted by monkeymike at 10:02 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Explain please?

Both cases have same Special Counsel appointment 'issue'. The remedy is to refile using an in-house Special Counsel but Hunter Biden is running out of time for that because of statue of limitations and TFG is not.
posted by mazola at 10:05 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Speaking from America: Canada, you're sitting on top of a hotplate.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:06 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Anna Bower, XTitter:
Judge Cannon repeatedly cites Justice Thomas's single-justice concurrence in the immunity case, in which he opines on an issue not briefed or argued before the court. Yet she is dismissive of a passage in the Supreme Court's *unanimous* Nixon opinion...because the issue was not briefed or argued before the court.
posted by delfin at 10:07 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

It's not the universe that doesn't want the special boy to face any consequences; it is the upper class that rules us. Every step of the way, they've been making things easy for someone like Trump. Some of them apparently at least felt they should gesture toward legal consequences for him, but at the national level none of really care if he gets elected, except that it will be a bummer if they lose jobs or wealth-building opportunities through not being in government. The law does not bind the very rich. I know it's bad form to say "well I understood this from the beginning", but it has never seemed at all likely to me that Trump would be convicted, no matter what he did. Rich people don't want other rich people going to jail unless the rich people in question personally injured them.
posted by Frowner at 10:08 AM on July 15, 2024 [23 favorites]

Unity = "My Way/Pledge to TFG" I'm afraid.
posted by mazola at 10:12 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

This is his chance. I'm not holding my breath but remain optimistic.

I believe he will at least feign a try at unity, but he won't get any positive audience reaction, so of course he'll pivot to his normal blood and guts word salad revenge fantasies and they will eat it up.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:12 AM on July 15, 2024 [7 favorites]

“A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president.”

The implicit idea in Thomas's writing here--that there's one standard for criminally prosecuting an ordinary person and some other, higher, standard for prosecuting a former president--is a big part of the problem we're facing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:14 AM on July 15, 2024 [13 favorites]

This decision feels stunning, but I gathered myself up a bit and one underlying fact is helping me put this event into a lower tier of horror, which is that it doesn't introduce any materially new aspect to the election. We already knew this trial wasn't going to play out before November, and that the outcome in November would determine whether Trump was ever going to be put on trial for it. That is awful, but it's not a new reality, it's our previous reality.

Folks are suggesting that this decision unburdens the Biden campaign to lay out the facts of the case and just sort of "prosecute the case" to the American people. Is that true? Like is there a new freedom to discuss undisclosed facts of the case?

(Setting aside whether this meandering, limp campaign would do something like that, post-shooting kid gloves now secured tightly over the original kid gloves they were using.)
posted by kensington314 at 10:15 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]

Now that's a cover [New Yorker | via @sandlapper37, Mastodon]
posted by mazola at 10:18 AM on July 15, 2024 [15 favorites]

Federalist society trained judges means Precedent doesn't matter, Justice doesn't matter, the Text of the Law doesn't matter.

Cannon wasn't going to let Trump suffer any consequences from this; she is suborned by the Federalist society. SCOTUS is never going to let Trump suffer any consequences either; it is suborned by the Federalist society. It was founded in order to take over the US Judicial branch for political ends, and it has succeeded. They own enough judges that any verdict or lack thereof can be reversed on appeal, and the top of the pyramid is owned by it.

The institutions of the USA will not save the people of the USA. Either the people of the USA save the institutions, or they don't.
posted by NotAYakk at 10:20 AM on July 15, 2024 [22 favorites]

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

— Theodore Roosevelt
posted by kirkaracha at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2024 [16 favorites]

Aileen Cannon is a good example of how Project 2025 would work. You put a barely qualified fascist in every government position that matters and BINGO. Fash times in the USA!
@lolgop | Mastodon
posted by mazola at 10:25 AM on July 15, 2024 [30 favorites]

All I am holding out for at this moment is a glimmer of humanity in Trump at the convention with some direction to cool down and work together as a country. This is his chance. I'm not holding my breath but remain optimistic.

Perhaps the one hope for this is that Crooks has (apparently) turned out to be a troubled, confused youth, rather than a card-carrying Antifa Warrior or such. Had the shooter acted with inferable leftist intent, or been wearing an anti-Trump shirt instead of some gun group's T-shirt, it would be open season already.

Trump is, however, a creature of vengeance at heart. Anyone who wrongs him must suffer greatly and grovel for rarely-granted forgiveness and kiss the ring before everyone's eyes. With this, he has the opportunity to point to his ear (a blemish to his precious vanity) and declare, justifiably or not, "THEY made this happen." To see anything else from him would be mildly miraculous.
posted by delfin at 10:33 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]

Life in the fash lane.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:40 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Perhaps the one hope for this is that Crooks has (apparently) turned out to be a troubled, confused youth, rather than a card-carrying Antifa Warrior or such. Had the shooter acted with inferable leftist intent, or been wearing an anti-Trump shirt instead of some gun group's T-shirt, it would be open season already.

I'd like to double down on this: it seems to me that we have no evidence so far that this was in any way a political attempt. "Unhinged, gun toting 20-year old white man tries to kill one of the most famous people in the world" is what we have so far. No manifesto, no wide open social media history, no schoolmates and neighbors talking about increasingly erratic behavior after getting ______-pilled on some website.

The NYT's "The Daily" podcast today called it a political shooting, as I'm sure other outlets are doing, and that seems irresponsible journalism at this point. It matters whether this person was an apolitical, left-wing, or right-wing shooter, and until there's evidence of some specific politics, a general political motivation shouldn't be attributed.
posted by kensington314 at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

The universe wants America's special boy to never face any consequences for anything

the universe wants us to try harder
posted by lescour at 10:43 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Of course Smith will appeal Cannon’s lawless ruling. However the 11th Circuit decides such an appeal, that decision will go to the Supreme Court — which itself is a lawless court in the hands of a majority who cares not one whit for precedent and is stacked with appointees beholden to Trump and the organizations that fed him their resumes. Some have direct ties to his effort to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. 1/
@heidilifeldman | Mastodon
posted by mazola at 10:43 AM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

It's good to know she cares about MeFiers.

Can't spell "MeFites" without fights!
posted by pwnguin at 10:51 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

has (apparently) turned out to be a troubled, confused youth
Heard that since the time before Tacitus
posted by robbyrobs at 10:52 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

My real hope is that the Republicans go hog wild now, tell us all the plans (I mean they have with Project 25 but have Trump say it so it actually breaks through) ...and then something something the public understand what is coming and the Dems sweep.

Who am I kidding. I have no real hopes....*sigh* So Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon it is I guess....to show all those mouthy Democratic appointed female Justices how to roll (ACB has been a bit too quiet).
posted by inflatablekiwi at 11:02 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

is a glimmer of humanity in Trump at the convention with some direction to cool down and work together as a country. This is his chance. I'm not holding my breath but remain optimistic.

He's already used this ruling as an opportunity to blast out a "Truth" or whatever the fuck it is on his Twitter knockoff saying that absolutely every single "Witch Hunt" case against him, criminal or civil, current or ended, should be dismissed or reversed. And he calls this "Uniting the Nation." So you might as well stop holding your breath.

New Tone (somebody called Nied on BluSky) so everyone can see what he posted without diving directly into the Truth Social cesspool.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:42 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Everything is an audition in the TFG world. Judge Cannon has been auditioning for Supreme Court Justice.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 11:44 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

it seems to me that we have no evidence so far that this was in any way a political attempt.

... what? Unless you can show us that Trump fired him early from The Apprentice, or didn't pay an invoice for services, or cut the kid off in traffic, or swiped an Amazon package off the kid's front porch... of course it's political. The planet's biggest political target, at a political rally. Not many people get that enthusiastic about forfeiting their future to whack an unknown.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:45 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

When you own the justices, nothing's illegal.
posted by tommasz at 11:51 AM on July 15, 2024

Am I totally off here though? Until we have evidence of a political motive, this is basically a super high profile celebrity shooting that we don't know any details about. Genuinely curious whether more people than just AC think this view is wrong. Like I don't think a journalist can "source" any kind of political intention, and assuming that it's based on some coherent political intention just kind of adds fuel to people attributing it to Democratic rhetoric, or pick your other bad faith reading.

But maybe I just have a weird view of journalism and the world?
posted by kensington314 at 11:51 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Was Hinckley shooting Reagan an act of non-political violence? It certainly had political results. I just think you have to account for the target too when solving this sort of equation.
posted by penduluum at 11:54 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Oh, sure. Of course there are political results, we're all in a constant fret about what exactly will be the result of this thing. I am just speaking to motive, can we call this a meaningfully political effort without knowing that any political intention was part of the motive?

This seems so meaningful to me as a distinction but maybe to others it seems like pointless splitting hairs and I have kooky views about how news should attribute things, I guess.
posted by kensington314 at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Was Hinckley shooting Reagan an act of non-political violence?

He was legit insane and was trying to impress Jody Foster.

There was absolutely no political motive for Hinkley.

Could easily be the same here. But the “liberal” media consensus has already congealed around “Dems need to calm down, they got Trump shot.”

It’s beyond irresponsible.

And that’s the “liberal” media.
posted by teece303 at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

I fully expect Trump to call for unity, exactly as project 2025 has called for:
"We are in the process of ~~the second American Revolution~~ uniting America, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
posted by meinvt at 11:59 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]

Dems sorta came out the gate talking about how much calming-down they were ready to start doing.
posted by penduluum at 12:00 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Am I totally off here though? Until we have evidence of a political motive...

Occam's Razor if nothing else.

Seriously, in the absence of proof of a clearly-defined alternate motive, it must be considered as essentially politically motivated, no?
posted by Artful Codger at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2024

"I've been treated like a nobody all my life, but if I shoot this person I'll be infamous" is a reasonably common alternative motive, and it's as likely as "I'm going to shoot the former President whom, according to circumstantial and hearsay evidence, I probably don't have a major problem with."
posted by delfin at 12:11 PM on July 15, 2024

if that proves to be the case, I'll accept that. otherwise...

And by politically-motivated, it doesn't necessarily mean "Dem talking points made me do it", it could be a visceral reaction to some specific statement or action of Trump's. It's a mistake to think that all US citizens who lean conservative are in lockstep with TFG.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:16 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

JD Vance. ugh
posted by chavenet at 12:17 PM on July 15, 2024 [7 favorites]

So is this the documents-case, assassination-attempt, VP-choice thread?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 12:20 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

JD Vance is Trump's VP choice.

Another sign I am getting old, I looked at his Wikipedia page and immediately focused in on:

Vance was born on August 2, 1984, in Middletown, Ohio

I'm getting old....
posted by fortitude25 at 12:24 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

So is this the documents-case, assassination-attempt, VP-choice thread?

So far. We'll see how the afternoon progresses. Joe Biden could trip over Commander Biden, or Major Biden could maul a postal carrier to death.
posted by kensington314 at 12:27 PM on July 15, 2024

It has to be Vance, because that way Trump can just duct-tape-and-magic-marker the "PE" and date on his old signs and reuse them on the cheap.
posted by delfin at 12:32 PM on July 15, 2024 [8 favorites]

Maybe Michigan shouldn’t have a law program if this sort of legal “scholar” is going to be the outcome.
posted by zenon at 12:32 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Biden should announce he’s not running for re election right now just to completely overload the media scape on this fucking insane news day.
posted by Liquidwolf at 12:35 PM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

Not sure Republican VP pick is very meaningful for the swing voters but this sort of seems net positive to me, since Vance is a little pissant who is a transparent nothing. Rubio would have been a more serious choice where some suburban types could look at him as a normalcy balancing the ticket or whatever. Again, at the marginal margins.

But then again, Vance does have that big manly beard, so what do I know.
posted by kensington314 at 12:37 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Biden should announce that he has also selected Vance as his running mate just to mess with Trump's mind.
posted by delfin at 12:37 PM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

So is this the documents-case, assassination-attempt, VP-choice thread?

Wait, isn't this the assassination-attempt thread ?
posted by Pendragon at 12:38 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

just to completely overload the media scape on this fucking insane news day

Alien contact disclosure when?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 12:41 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

“Donald Trump picked J.D. Vance as his running mate because Vance will do what Mike Pence wouldn’t on January 6: bend over backwards to enable Trump and his extreme MAGA agenda, even if it means breaking the law and no matter the harm to the American people.” - Biden-Harris 2024 Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon
@w7voa | Mastodon
posted by mazola at 12:44 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

Vance would have been fanning Trump with a palm frond on January 6, and then afterward he'd tell the real 'murican types that he pays to be his friends that he punched a cop (he didn't).
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 1:05 PM on July 15, 2024

What's the statute of limitations on Trump's document charges?
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:08 PM on July 15, 2024

> What's the statute of limitations on Trump's document charges?

I'm not sure that matters once an indictment has been handed down. I believe the statute of limitations is a time limit on filing charges, not completing a trial.
posted by Turd Ferguson at 1:14 PM on July 15, 2024

These are your twin reminders that

1) twelve Democratic senators voted to confirm Aileen Cannon and a mess of other Trump appointed judges during the lame duck session, just weeks after the Republicans had rammed through an ACB confirmation

2) Jack Smith could have filed the classified documents case in DC (and likely New Jersey too), thus avoiding the utterly predictable outcome of drawing this batshit partisan Trump appointee as judge for the case

Just utter failure and own goals all around.
posted by Gadarene at 1:31 PM on July 15, 2024 [27 favorites]

>Not many people get that enthusiastic about forfeiting their future to whack an unknown.

not many famous people get within 35 miles of Bethel Park, PA either, though.

Pretty much by process of elimination everyone pointing an AR-15 at people is a kook of some sort.
posted by torokunai at 1:39 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Corruption is a sign of a failed government. So, maybe the orange fascist isn't entirely wrong about everything.
posted by theora55 at 1:59 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

The conservative project is that people get the government goods and services they can afford, and not one. drop. more. (Courtesy Doug Bashford on the 1990s Usenet)
posted by torokunai at 2:21 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

> not many famous people get within 35 miles of Bethel Park, PA either, though.

Bethel Park is not some far-flung rural outpost or exurb. It's less than 10 miles as the crow flies from the center of Pittsburgh, and the Pittsburgh metro area is the 27th largest by population in the US. None other than the First Lady herself, Dr. Jill Biden, was in Pittsburgh on the same day the Klan rally was happening in Butler. The shooter would have likely passed very close to her on his way from Bethel Park to Butler, and would have still had another 30-45 minutes of driving to get there.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:28 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

2) Jack Smith could have filed the classified documents case in DC (and likely New Jersey too), thus avoiding the utterly predictable outcome of drawing this batshit partisan Trump appointee as judge for the case

All or nearly all the alleged conduct took place in FL. Charging in any other venue would have wasted time while Trump’s lawyers got the venue changed (which they would have a strong argument for). And Cannon’s appointment to the case was not a given—she was randomly assigned.

There’s stuff to be mad about in the handling of Trump’s criminal cases, but this is not one. Smith had multiple bad options and chose the least bad. Then he rolled a 1 on his d20.
posted by Room 101 at 2:38 PM on July 15, 2024 [23 favorites]

given that hypothesis, it would be kind of ironic if Biden and shooter passed another at Evans cemetery which is the location of the opening for the movie night of the Living Dead.
posted by clavdivs at 2:47 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

All or nearly all the alleged conduct took place in FL. Charging in any other venue would have wasted time while Trump’s lawyers got the venue changed (which they would have a strong argument for). And Cannon’s appointment to the case was not a given—she was randomly assigned.

DC was absolutely a viable and legitimate option as a venue under the statute, to my recollection, but I welcome being corrected.

There was also clearly similar conduct that occurred in Bedminster that wasn't charged.
posted by Gadarene at 3:01 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

An empire is likely to expand or at least attempt expansion under an authoritarian leader with devoted followers, if history is a guide.
posted by zippy at 3:56 PM on July 15, 2024

This DOJ has already announced that it will appeal according to Reuters. The case will probably be reassigned if the case is appealed successfully.
posted by interogative mood at 4:38 PM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

"My search for a place to escape to after the election continues apace"

Costa Rica isn't perfect, but they abolished their army in 1946 and that's had a lot of positive consequences like no war means no one is pissed at you over foreign policy means no one wants to commit terrorist attacks means no need for a police state

I lived there for a year about 20 years ago and it was pretty chill

IIRC, if you want permanent residency leading to citizenship then you need to deposit $60,000 US into a Costa Rican bank account and convert $1,000/month to colones, but a lot of people live there unofficially and just take a 72-hour "visa vacation" to Panama or Nicaragua every 90 days

there are already so many American expats living there that they have more Americans per capita than any country other than the US itself
posted by Jacqueline at 4:42 PM on July 15, 2024 [10 favorites]

Yes, but empires fall under authoritarian leaders too [...] At this point it's millions vs billions[...]

Jeepers, I hope the accelerationist (and climate-change denying) harbinger of the end of empire doesn't, say, use his core-powers nuclear weapons to do anything terrible along the path to this dice-roll hope that a post-American continent will have a lower carbon footprint.

But if you want to somehow supervillian your own way into holding the U.S. hostage until it abolishes all its cars, go for it. Seems like a more reliable cost/benefit outcome than hoping to find out what the death throes of a fascist superpower might look like. Jeepers.
posted by nobody at 4:48 PM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Bonfights of the Mefiers
posted by y2karl at 5:01 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

This DOJ has already announced that it will appeal according to Reuters. The case will probably be reassigned if the case is appealed successfully.

Why would you think that? That's not how it works.

(signed, former district court judicial clerk)
posted by Gadarene at 5:04 PM on July 15, 2024

(how does it work?)
posted by mittens at 5:12 PM on July 15, 2024

This DOJ has already announced that it will appeal according to Reuters. The case will probably be reassigned if the case is appealed successfully.
posted by interogative mood

Doesn't matter now. Cannon has succeeded in her allotted task of delaying the trial long enough prevent it being fully resolved before the election, thus earning a whole truckload of brownie points from Trump/MAGA, and is now probably quite content to be removed from the no doubt stressful case, having fulfilled her contractual obligations to her patrons.

Of course, that payoff depends on Trump winning. But if he does then she will reap serious rewards, including a lifetime of protection against any accountability (because there is no foreseeable world in which the Reps don't hold enough blocking votes in the Senate against impeachment).
posted by Pouteria at 5:20 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

(how does it work?)

Assuming the rules are the same in the 11th Circuit as they are everywhere else I'm familiar with, if the dismissal is reversed (after all appeals are exhausted), then it will just go right back to Judge Cannon. Absent the DOJ making an affirmative argument that the case should be reassigned (and the panel agreeing, which would be very unusual), she's the assigned judge to the case.
posted by Gadarene at 5:28 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Calls grow for Judge Aileen Cannon to recuse herself in Trump documents case (June 29, 2023)
posted by jeffburdges at 5:33 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

The federal circuit courts have the power to reassign a case on remand to the district court; it's just rarely done. And I'm not holding out a lot of hope given the geography of the 11th Circuit.

From the abstract of a University of Miami Law Review article:

Federal appellate courts have the authority to order reassignment of cases to different district judges as part of their supervisory authority over the district courts within their circuits. This Article examines the categories of cases in which the Eleventh Circuit has ordered reassignment to different district court judges on remand and explains the rationale underlying reassignment in each category. The more understandable cases address both the appearance and the presence of bias or impropriety by the original trial judge. This Article describes the general principles underlying the Eleventh Circuit’s reassignment practices and then questions why reassignment is necessary in cases involving government breaches of plea agreements where none of the usual reasons underlying reassignment seem to exist.

In United States v. Torkington, the Eleventh Circuit extended the principle underlying reassignment beyond cases involving an erroneous refusal of the trial judge to recuse himself or herself. While the Torkington test addresses problems regarding the original trial judge’s bias, appearance of bias, recalcitrance, or missteps, there is an interesting deviation from these bases for reassignment in cases involving breached plea agreements.

Jonathan D. Colan, Reassigning Cases on Remand in the Interests of Justice, for the Enforcement of Appellate Decisions, and for Other Reasons That Remain Unclear, 72 U. Mia. L. Rev. 1092 (2018)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:09 PM on July 15, 2024 [4 favorites]

Thank you, snuffleupagus! That's a cool article; I love when people dig into procedural stuff like that.
posted by Gadarene at 6:18 PM on July 15, 2024

Those "calls to recuse" by legal scolars contain arguments relevant to the case possibly being reassigned, not that they'll do so, but that's where you'd look first for the arguments.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:22 PM on July 15, 2024

Self-recusal is different than reassignment on remand. If this Judge was going to recognize her own lack of impartiality and step aside, it would have happened a while ago.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:25 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]

Late to this thread with an irrelevant question- why do I always see the same photo of Judge Cannon? I understand ‘ no cameras in the courtroom’, but is there nothing else but this ‘yearbook’ photo?
posted by TDIpod at 6:34 PM on July 15, 2024

Self-recusal is different than reassignment on remand. If this Judge was going to recognize her own lack of impartiality and step aside, it would have happened a while ago.

Did the DOJ even ever move for her recusal or for reassignment of the case? Genuine question; I don't remember them doing so but I don't know why they wouldn't have.
posted by Gadarene at 6:43 PM on July 15, 2024

I don't think they asked. It's a high bar and, absent any evidence, it only prolongs the process and antagonizes the judge (and looks like you're judge shopping with a weak case). Either Cannon was 'normal' and things would be ok or… not and it would play out in public in an obvious way.
posted by mazola at 6:51 PM on July 15, 2024 [2 favorites]

Seen on Twitter:

The bipartisan group that hammered out the current special counsel regs & agreed it was the correct way to do it included....the Chief Justice, John Roberts.

posted by cheshyre at 7:33 PM on July 15, 2024 [7 favorites]

Its so cute to see the rules-fetish folks trying to find more laws, regulations, rules and precedents and norms to rescue the dead project of having republicans follow the rules. there is power and there is sysiphis, enjoy your boulder folks, rules are for keeping you predictable, busy and contained.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:59 PM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

That does seem to be the Democratic approach to many things, yes. Probably won't work, so why bother to try.

As a defence tactic, sure what the heck. In a high profile case that's bound to be seen as political you do have the optics to consider. It should be a case that could be made in front of any Judge, not just a Democrat appointments. You cannot really prove a Judge is compromised until you get a series of events such as what we've seen.

Jack Smith is a rule-of-law type guy so yeah it's not a surprise it wasn't played as 'power politics'. In my eyes, he played the hand he was dealt and exposed a compromised Judge along the way. What the heck is he supposed to do?
posted by mazola at 8:43 PM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]

I am exhausted and depressed by everything, so I will just say that I understand your perspective and disagree, and we can leave it at that.
posted by Gadarene at 9:38 PM on July 15, 2024

That does seem to be the Democratic approach to many things, yes. Probably won't work, so why bother to try.

(Also, goodness gracious, they wouldn't want to antagonize Judge Cannon! Can you imagine?)
posted by Gadarene

Moving for removal of a hostile judge is not a token performative gesture. It is about as serious and risky as it gets in the legal world. You get one shot at it, it is very rarely granted, and if it doesn't work your case is in very very deep shit.
posted by Pouteria at 10:08 PM on July 15, 2024 [6 favorites]

That does seem to be the Democratic approach to many things, yes. Probably won't work, so why bother to try.
The issue they're facing is the perennial problem in a 'good vs bad' fight - if you put yourself up as being on the side of good, you have to walk the talk and act good or you lose all credibility. If you're on the bad side, you have nothing to lose by acting bad because, well, that's your whole thing. I used to see this all the time in my years working for a regulatory agency - we were bound to act within the law and by things like the 'model litigant' requirements that are placed on government agencies here, so we couldn't just take action without a visibly and proveably defensible position and couldn't take advantage of lax laws or of uncertainty to drive time and money-wasting legal action like endless appeals the way bad actors could.

The Democrats have held themselves up as the 'good guys' in the fight and are either too scared to step up or don't realise you can be tough and still remain on the side of right. Obviously, they all need to apply for their jobs before a hostile interview panel every few years, so are hyper-aware of how they present and how that affects their future employment. Because they keep portraying themselves as 'good' and seem to have internalised that to the extent they constantly feel they have to be nice to everyone, they've forgotten that good and tough is better than just good and they've all turned into a bunch of sooks who keep getting their lunch money taken, then wringing their hands because people won't vote for them.

Those who fight on the side of darkness always, always have an advantage in a fight, whether it be legal, political or on the playground. That doesn't mean they will always win, because, as Teddy Roosevelt apparently claimed, keeping your big stick out of sight until it's needed will get you further. The Democrats seem to have lost their stick these days and are speaking softly as well.
posted by dg at 10:50 PM on July 15, 2024 [7 favorites]

Wow.

the summer after 9/11 we were visiting family in Germany and ever single person born from say 1935 to 1950 said the same thing (regardless of political orientation): Reichstag Fire. Now, these are just people reflecting on their own lived history and experience... but still, they had a point. If you go back and read the way the Nazi's took over the German government there are striking similarities... with today, I mean. As in, this all makes one nauseous considering history and how things have turned out in the past.

Personally, I'm looking into registering to vote in Texas.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:40 AM on July 16, 2024 [3 favorites]

Those who fight on the side of darkness always, always have an advantage in a fight, whether it be legal, political or on the playground. That doesn't mean they will always win, because, as Teddy Roosevelt apparently claimed, keeping your big stick out of sight until it's needed will get you further.

And also because they have a commensurate disadvantage: should they try to work constructively in tandem with their fellows in darkness, the alliance inevitably breaks down because they know all their peers are completely untrustworthy.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 3:27 AM on July 16, 2024 [3 favorites]

law is a subset of crime.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 4:24 AM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]

Derail about wishing/hoping for the destruction of America and global warming removed, a few response still up for some context. Please remember the Guidelines and be sensitive to context and avoid doomerism, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:25 AM on July 16, 2024 [4 favorites]

Former federal prosecutor: Cannon dismissal of Trump documents case ‘simply indefensible’ [The Hill]

“As a legal decision by a district court judge, it’s simply indefensible,” Litman told CNN’s Laura Coates Monday evening. “It almost doesn’t make sense to try to talk about it in legal terms. This is, as I said, the first Project 2025 opinion.”

“The principle is only loyalty to Trump,” he added in the interview.

posted by mazola at 8:15 AM on July 16, 2024 [6 favorites]

I'm still astonished at just how much Thomas' concurrence in the Immunity case was just such a naked bullshit handoff to Cannon. Like, rereading it is WTF?

Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow? [NBC]: A court ruling that dismissed Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment echoed language in a concurring opinion Thomas wrote in the former president's election interference case.

Thomas' opinion, Smith wrote, addressed "an issue that Trump did not raise, that the parties did not brief, and that was not relevant."

posted by mazola at 9:34 AM on July 16, 2024 [4 favorites]

Outside Legal Cannon [The Status Kuo | Substack]: A shocking dismissal of the Trump federal criminal case in Florida leaves many questions but ironically may provide a clear path to booting a terrible judge.

Anyone paying attention can see exactly how this went down. Justice Clarence Thomas, on the last day of the term, issued a concurring opinion in Donald Trump v. United States on presidential immunity, observing that he didn’t even believe the Special Counsel was legally appointed. But the legitimacy of the Special Counsel wasn’t at issue in that case; once again no one had argued it, and honestly, no one asked you, Clarence.

Still, Judge Cannon took her cue to spike Thomas’s set-up, knowing it would give her ample legal cover. She cited Thomas’s concurrence three times in her ruling.

This sequence of events is simply galling. Justice Thomas, who is married to Ginni Thomas the insurrectionist, should have recused himself from the immunity case entirely. Instead, as legal analyst Marcy Wheeler noted, he wrote a how-to manual on booting the Special Counsel, which Judge Cannon then followed to dismiss the entire case on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.
…

If Cannon gets reversed, Smith might use the opportunity to move for a reassignment of the case. On this he already has some solid arguments, including previous instances where Cannon seemed to bend over backward to help Trump and the present ruling that flies in the face of all precedent and the plain text of the authorizing statutes.

All of this will take time, which is highly frustrating. But there was already zero chance that the case would go to trial before the election, so the silver lining here is that Judge Cannon may get reversed and booted from the case down the line if and when Trump loses the election.

posted by mazola at 11:10 AM on July 16, 2024 [10 favorites]

Hell, before the immunity ruling I would have said there’s no way in hell the Supreme Court would uphold a challenge to the special counsel appointment. But now? It’s insane to say this out loud, but I think Barrett is the only conservative who might not join such an opinion.
posted by Room 101 at 12:06 PM on July 16, 2024 [4 favorites]

Why? The conservative arm of SCOTUS is clearly a major problem, but I don’t think any of the other justices joined Thomas’ concurrence? Or did they?
posted by nat at 12:41 PM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]

The cheese stands alone.

so far

and that's one smelly cheese
posted by mazola at 12:57 PM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]

It’s insane to say this out loud, but I think Barrett is the only conservative who might not join such an opinion.

If the 11th Cir. breaks the way the five of the SCOTUS Justices prefer, they can just deny review and let their silence carry the day.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:09 PM on July 16, 2024

From the point of view of an outside observer, Aileen Cannon is outrageously banana-republic-level corrupt. As is Clarence Thomas. It seems strange that no-one can do something about it.

What happened to the rule of law, checks and balances, beacon of democracy and all that?

If the 11th Cir. breaks the way the five of the SCOTUS Justices prefer, they can just deny review.
As I understand it, they have already ruled against Justice Cannon twice. But the case will end at the corrupt Supreme Court at the end anyway.
posted by mumimor at 1:13 PM on July 16, 2024 [6 favorites]

Not to approach the lathe, but if Trump is already in office by then it might be the easier path.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:27 PM on July 16, 2024

Why? The conservative arm of SCOTUS is clearly a major problem, but I don’t think any of the other justices joined Thomas’ concurrence? Or did they?

No, nobody else signed onto Thomas's concurrence. However, their decision not to join it wasn't necessarily because they didn't agree, but rather that the concurrence was on a topic not related to a matter before the court. It is a small-c conservative judicial principle to not decide issues that no party raised, and no party raised the special counsel appointment.

I'm damn sure Alito agrees with Thomas, because he's as rabidly a Christo-fascist. Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team during the Clinton impeachment and soured on the idea of special prosecutors in general after the experience. Doesn't mean he'd let his personal policy opinion reflect his stance on the law, but anything's possible after signing onto an opinion like Trump v US.

Gorsuch is a tough call; someone much more well-read than me would have to opine.
posted by Room 101 at 2:19 PM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]

The latest New Yorker cover is quite relevant to the SCOTUS part of this conversation.
posted by cheshyre at 5:21 PM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]

-Trump's Case Puts Judge Aileen Cannon in the Spotlight
-As Trump's Documents Case Crawls Along, Questions About Judge Abound

It's Impossible to Overstate the Damage Done by the Supreme Court in This Term - "The conservative justices fear nothing: not the people, not the Congress, and certainly not the Democrats. They are drunk on their own power because nobody will cut off their supply. The Supreme Court rules the country in unchecked, unaccountable fashion, yet most people cannot name the justices and wouldn't recognize them if one of the justices was holding a gun to their head... and they will continue to do all the things Republicans want that nobody elected them to do."

In one single month, the Supreme Court: legalized bribery of public officials, declared the president of the United States absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for “official” acts, and made the power to issue regulations subject to the court’s unelected approval.

When we widen the aperture to look at the whole term, we find that the court also ruled that people who fail in their violent attempts to reverse the results of an election can run for office in the very next election; would-be mass shooters can buy attachments to change their weapons into machine guns; and white state legislatures can systematically remove all Black people from their districts and call it “politics.” And as if to add a dose of unvarnished cruelty to its machinations, the court also ruled that insurrectionists who attack the capitol and obstruct the work of Congress cannot be charged with a crime, but homeless people sleeping on the streets can be sent to jail.

These rulings mean that the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, gets the final word on what regulations Congress really wanted to pass, and which crimes presidents are allowed to commit. And the justices themselves can be paid, handsomely, for their opinions should interested parties and wealthy donors would like to give them a “gratuity” for ruling in ways that please those moneyed interests.

Folks, we can’t “come back” from this. There is no presidential order or legislative action that can undo all of the evils committed by the Supreme Court. This is different from what’s happened before. In 2012, when the court gutted the most important piece of legislation in American history, the Voting Rights Act, there were immediate calls for Congress to pass legislation restoring what the court took away. Obviously, Congress hasn’t done that because Republicans are against Black people voting, and Democrats, even when they have power, are against doing anything that would upset Senate traditions. But, at a minimum, the possibility existed that legislation could fix what the Supreme Court had broken (at least until the Supreme Court overruled those legislative fixes).

Similarly, in 2022, when the court took away a constitutional right for the first time in American history and overturned Roe v. Wade, there were immediate calls for Congress to pass legislation restoring what the court took away. Obviously, that hasn’t happened, because Republicans are against women having equal rights and Democrats are against doing anything that would upset Senate traditions—but, again, the possibility of a remedy existed.

This time, there’s no legislative fix for the problems the court has created. Consider the proposition that presidents are no longer subject to criminal laws. The court has ruled that, as a matter of the constitutional separation of powers, nobody has the right to prosecute presidents for crimes as long as the president claims that committing crimes is part of their job. Congress cannot reinstate criminal penalties the court says are unconstitutional in the first place.

Meanwhile, when it comes to government regulations you may have heard people—specifically, Republicans speaking in bad faith—claim that Congress just has to write better laws instead of leaving it to the executive agencies to fill in the gaps. But that is simply not a reasonable or feasible expectation. Congress doesn’t know how much lead is allowed to be in water before it damages the brains of the people who drink it. It doesn’t know how fast an industrial thresher should be allowed to operate before it becomes a death trap operated by a Bond villain. It doesn’t know if taking a submarine piloted with a PlayStation controller to visit the Titanic is a good idea or not. Experts know these things. Congress cannot write laws detailed enough for them to avoid needing to be filled out by experts in the relevant field. By placing itself over the executive agencies, the Supreme Court makes itself not judges but regulators who are allowed to assert their guesses over the judgments of scientists and professionals.

The Supreme Court is the only branch of government that claims the power to rule unchecked by the other branches of government. If Congress passes a law, the court claims authority to overrule it. If the president issues an order or regulation, the court claims the power to overrule them. If a state legislature or governor passes a rule or ordinance, the court claims the power to overrule them. And if voters attempt to elect leaders, the court claims the authority to overrule them by literally picking whose votes should be counted or recounted—to say nothing of who gets to vote in the first place.

This is not how a democracy or a republic is supposed to work. Supreme power is not supposed to reside in the hands of unelected officials who have been appointed for life. In fact, this is not how our democracy is supposed to work: The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court these powers—the court has invented them for itself.

There are only two ways to deal with this Supreme Court: ignore its rulings or flood it with new justices who will give back the power this court has stolen from the rest of us. The first option, most likely, leads directly to civil war—one where the rule of law can be imposed only by military force under the sole discretion of whoever happens to be the president, assuming that president commands the loyalty of the military. Democracy cannot long exist if laws have meaning only when the president decides to enforce them at the point of a gun.

The second option, court expansion, is the normal, peaceful, constitutional solution to a court that no longer believes it can be checked by other institutions. Adding justices who are going to act within the bounds of their constitutional authority is the only peaceful way to save ourselves from the ones who won’t. I support court expansion because it is the simple, legal, and nonviolent way to counteract the corrupt and power-hungry court.

But many Democrats do not. President Joe Biden does not. He, like so many others in his party, would rather allow the Supreme Court to be the only power that matters in this country, leaving the rest of us to squabble endlessly over the scraps of self-government the court lets fall from its table of real authority. For many Democrats, pretending to hold power is more important than actually using power to do the work of the American people over the objection of the Supreme Court.

For Republicans, the Supreme Court is a boon. Republican control of the Supreme Court allows them to pass an agenda, by a vote of 6-3, that they couldn’t get through the elected branches of government. That’s because the Republican agenda of mass shootings, forced-birth, corruption, and criminality is extremely unpopular. Voters do not like Republican policies, but the Supreme Court literally doesn’t have to care about what voters want. Republicans have set up a system where either Republicans win elections—or elections do not matter.

The Supreme Court Took A Sledgehammer To American Democracy - "[T]he Supreme Court gilded the U.S. presidency with monarchial powers the likes of which we've never had before, never sought, and thought we had rid ourselves of two and half centuries ago... We have entered an uncertain new era. The door is now wide open to the kinds of fascism and authoritarianism we spent much of the 20th century and hundreds of thousands of American lives combatting overseas."

The American presidency now exists outside of the law and beyond the reach of the criminal law. In the Supreme Court’s view, the President is the law. This is new, it’s unprecedented, and the consequences are almost beyond our ability to imagine or foretell.

The rule of law, as the saying goes, must exist for everyone; otherwise, it exists for no one. By placing the president beyond the rule of law, the Supreme Court has deprived all of us of its protections. The constitutional structure we have relied on since 1789 — imperfect but resilient, a creation of man not of the divine, a work in progress never to be fully completed — was turned on its ear yesterday by an ahistorical decision grounded neither in the text of the Constitution nor our traditions and customs nor our best hopes for ourselves or our form of self governance.

It is a shock to the system that is going to take a long time to come to grips with and decades or longer to remedy. In the first few hours since the decision came down, I’m not seeing it sinking in yet across broad swaths of the media, the legal system, the political system or society writ large. The high court has ruled it so. There is no immediate recourse against it or against the new and alien structure it has foisted upon us. Short of a new constitutional convention or a series of constitutional amendments, we are stuck with it. That is going to take time to settle into elite consciousness.

Trump v. United States is the new Roe v. Wade - "We live in hope."
posted by kliuless at 12:34 AM on July 17, 2024 [17 favorites]

Assumes hope not in evidence.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:58 AM on July 17, 2024 [2 favorites]

Legal Eagle: Judge Cannon Kills The Classified Documents Case Because Nothing Matters.
posted by Pendragon at 1:49 PM on July 18, 2024 [4 favorites]

« Older archaeoacoustic bird & jaguar | A deliciously detailed 13th century plan. And a... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump
July 15, 2024 7:31 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump July 15, 2024 7:31 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump
July 15, 2024 7:31 AM Subscribe